Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

2006-10-16 Thread RoBeRT B
If you see/grep Danial Thom in FreeBSD related, consider this: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q1/13785.8.html http://amasci.com/weird/flamer.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war My personal fav' is the first link... How do we know that 'DT' even exists? Hmmm. DT - S, go awa

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

2006-10-16 Thread Danial Thom
--- Mark Linimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:01:08PM -0400, > Michael Butler wrote: > > For everyone's benefit then, please feel free > to submit your patches > > along with your technical analysis. > > I think his best bet is a fork, instead. Then > he can tell all

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

2006-10-15 Thread Danial Thom
--- NOC Meganet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 14 October 2006 17:13, Danial Thom > wrote: > > The fact that a processor has 2 cores doesn't > > mean you have to use them, just like a MB > with 2 > > sockets doesn't need both to be used. If the > OS > > is faster with 1 processor than

Re: Performance 4.x vs. 6.x

2006-10-14 Thread Danial Thom
--- Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:34:36PM -0700, > Danial Thom wrote: > > Yeah, bury your head in the sand as always. > > > > Its been proven over and over. Robert Watson > has > > admitted many times that 6.x is not as fast > as > > 4.x uniprocessor >